The Ferrari SF-26 now has to prove that it is genuinely capable of winning. Charles Leclerc’s second place at the Singapore Grand Prix was a positive result, but it is not enough to erase the doubts created by a season lacking consistency. At the same time, Red Bull’s resurgence has reopened an increasingly uncomfortable debate over how competitive Ferrari’s chassis and aerodynamic package really are.
For much of the season, one explanation has repeatedly surfaced around Maranello: Ferrari supposedly had one of the strongest chassis in Formula 1 but was being held back primarily by a power-unit deficit. As Red Bull continues to improve, however, that argument is becoming much harder to accept without qualification. Austin will now provide another important test of whether Ferrari’s weaknesses really can be traced mainly to engine performance or whether the entire SF-26 project deserves closer scrutiny.
Charles Leclerc finishes second, but Ferrari needs more than the ‘predestined one’ narrative
Charles Leclerc’s second place in Singapore was a good result, but not necessarily an extraordinary performance. That distinction seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to make whenever Ferrari and its leading driver are discussed.
Did Charles Leclerc extract the maximum that circumstances allowed? That is a perfectly legitimate assessment. But it does not automatically mean that the Monegasque produced the kind of exceptional drive capable of fundamentally changing the verdict on his season.
Charles Leclerc attempted to put Max Verstappen under pressure but was unable to take victory away from him. The Dutchman managed the start, retained the lead and controlled the Grand Prix from the front. Red Bull, meanwhile, gave him a car competitive enough to defend his position and manage the race.
This is not about blaming Charles Leclerc. It would be unfair to ignore Ferrari’s limitations and the difficulties the team encountered over the course of the weekend. Yet there still needs to be a distinction between a strong performance and an exceptional feat.
If a driver is considered a generational talent or the so-called predestined one, expectations will naturally be extremely high. Talent must also be measured by the ability to turn opportunities into results beyond what the machinery appears capable of delivering. In Singapore, Charles Leclerc secured an important second place, but he was unable to overcome Max Verstappen.
The result nevertheless represented an encouraging step for Ferrari after a difficult sequence of races. The wider context behind the podium, including the SF-26’s strengths and weaknesses at Marina Bay, can be explored in our analysis of why Charles Leclerc’s Singapore P2 gives Ferrari hope before the Austin upgrades.
Is second place enough? In championship terms, perhaps. For a Ferrari team that should ultimately be targeting the Formula 1 title, considerably less so.
Did Ferrari really have the best chassis? Red Bull changes the debate
For months, one explanation became almost accepted wisdom in discussions surrounding Ferrari: the car was supposedly highly competitive aerodynamically but handicapped by the lower output of its power unit.
The theory was simple. Give the SF-26 roughly another 30 horsepower and Ferrari could have fought for the World Championship. It may be a plausible argument under certain conditions, but that does not mean it should automatically be treated as an unquestionable fact.
If Ferrari genuinely had the best chassis on the grid, the expectation would be for the team to exploit that advantage across a significant number of circuits, particularly at venues where outright engine power plays a smaller role relative to aerodynamic performance, mechanical grip and tyre management.
The 2026 season has instead produced a much more complicated picture.
Red Bull has recovered significant ground, introduced interesting technical developments and demonstrated progress that cannot simply be attributed to Max Verstappen’s talent. The Dutchman remains a decisive factor, but the competitiveness of the Red Bull package is an integral part of his recent success.
The question therefore becomes unavoidable: what if Red Bull now possesses the more effective chassis and aerodynamic package?
It is impossible to establish that conclusively without comparing detailed data, car configurations and specific operating conditions. At the same time, it is increasingly difficult to continue describing Ferrari’s chassis as the best almost by default while ignoring how much its rivals have progressed.
The evolving picture can also be examined through the Ferrari vs F1 Rivals statistics, which compare Ferrari directly with Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren and the rest of the grid across championship points, qualifying, race results and representative team race pace.
Red Bull’s latest developments could also provide clues to technical concepts that eventually influence its aerodynamic direction for 2027. That remains a hypothesis rather than a certainty, but it underlines why Ferrari must understand the significance of its rivals’ progress rather than rely on explanations that are becoming increasingly reassuring but less comprehensive.
The myth of the missing 30 horsepower that would have changed the championship
The supposed superiority of Ferrari’s chassis has gradually become a recurring justification. The power unit was allegedly not at the required level, while virtually everything else on the SF-26 was good enough to win.
The problem is that a modern Formula 1 car cannot realistically be evaluated by isolating a single component.
Competitiveness comes from the integration of chassis, aerodynamics, suspension, tyre management, power unit, strategy and development capability. A power deficit can be extremely costly at certain circuits and considerably less significant at others. But removing that deficit does not automatically prove that a team would have won the World Championship.
A claim of that magnitude requires convincing technical evidence rather than hypothetical reconstruction.
If Ferrari cannot win consistently, the analysis has to encompass the entire project. Simply saying that the engine is around 30 horsepower down cannot explain every opportunity that has gone missing.
Ferrari’s own recent Singapore analysis has shown that the SF-26 still has important limitations beyond straight-line performance, particularly around rear stability and tyre management. Those issues were visible in the detailed breakdown of the SF-26’s rear-grip problems and strategic difficulties in Singapore.
Above all, when a rival closes the gap and begins winning regularly, previous assessments have to evolve with the competitive reality.
Red Bull has demonstrated that performance gaps can be reduced through development. Ferrari still has to prove that it can respond with comparable effectiveness.
Ferrari sits second in the championship but remains short of its ambitions
Second place in the Constructors’ Championship may represent an improvement compared with the previous season. But championship position alone does not define the quality of a Formula 1 project.
The gap to the leader also matters, as does the frequency with which a team can fight for victories, its ability to put rivals under sustained pressure and the development trajectory it is building for the following season.
A team can improve without becoming a genuine title contender. That is the distinction Ferrari now has to confront.
The danger is that comparing 2026 with a weaker previous campaign could gradually lower expectations. If finishing second is automatically treated as success even when the gap to the benchmark remains substantial, relative progress risks being confused with absolute competitiveness.
Ferrari supporters have every right to expect more than a car capable of occasional podium finishes. The target should be a machine that can win because it possesses the underlying performance to do so, not merely one that takes advantage when circumstances create an opening.
Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari’s Singapore regret
One of the positive elements of Ferrari’s season has been Lewis Hamilton’s contribution. The seven-time World Champion has shown competitive flashes and delivered several important results during his first campaign with the Scuderia.
Singapore, however, ended with Lewis Hamilton in sixth place after he had started from third on the grid. The difficulties he encountered during the Grand Prix prevented Ferrari from converting that strong starting position into a more valuable result.
Strategy also became an important part of the outcome. Ferrari split the programmes of its two drivers before several subsequent decisions and the timing of the Safety Car periods complicated the race. A potential double podium eventually slipped away, as examined in the detailed analysis of Lewis Hamilton’s Singapore tyre gamble.
His longer-term role nevertheless remains particularly interesting. Lewis Hamilton can still provide an important technical reference for Ferrari’s development, especially during a period when the team needs to understand how to make the SF-26 faster and, crucially, more consistent across different types of circuits.
Here too, however, encouraging signs cannot be mistaken for a complete solution. The potential of the driver still needs to be supported by machinery capable of allowing him to exploit it.
The comparison with a more calculated style of Formula 1, almost reminiscent of Alain Prost, can work as an editorial provocation. It does not mean that driver talent has somehow disappeared. Rather, management, calculation and strategic restraint can sometimes carry increasing importance compared with the traditional image of a driver attacking and defending without hesitation.
That discussion ultimately concerns the nature of Formula 1’s current technical and sporting regulations as much as it concerns the qualities of the individual drivers.
Austin becomes a credibility test for the Ferrari SF-26
The next round in Austin, scheduled for 23–25 October, will therefore represent an important opportunity to assess Ferrari’s ability to respond to Red Bull’s recent progress. Full session times and weekend information are available in our 2026 United States Grand Prix schedule and COTA guide.
It would be inaccurate to call Austin Ferrari’s final mathematical opportunity of the season because further Grands Prix remain after the United States round. It can, however, become an important test of whether the SF-26 still possesses enough development potential to change the direction of the closing stages of the championship.
Ferrari must prove that it can compete not only when circumstances work in its favour, but also when the pace of its rivals forces the team to find additional performance.
If the chassis really is the major strength of the car, Austin should provide concrete evidence. If Red Bull again proves stronger in areas such as aerodynamic efficiency and tyre management, some of the assumptions made about Ferrari during the previous months will need to be reconsidered.
The timing is particularly significant because Ferrari is preparing further development for the United States Grand Prix. The package is expected to provide another indication of whether Maranello can widen the SF-26’s operating window and reverse the trend that led Charles Leclerc to warn about Ferrari losing ground. The background to those changes is covered in our preview of the Ferrari Austin upgrades and Charles Leclerc’s concerns.
This is why the narrative surrounding the missing 30 horsepower is no longer sufficient on its own. Ferrari may indeed have operated with a power-unit deficit, but the chassis, aerodynamic efficiency, tyre management and quality of the development programme must all be judged as part of the same competitive package.
The SF-26 can only establish itself as a genuinely important Ferrari Formula 1 car by proving its potential on the circuit rather than through expectations or explanations. The evolution of those technical areas can be followed throughout the season in our Ferrari technical analysis coverage.
Austin therefore needs to become the beginning of a technical response rather than another opportunity to explain why Ferrari could not win. Supporters do not need to hear that the SF-26 might have fought for the World Championship with a few more horsepower. They need to see a Ferrari capable of fighting for it in reality.
Leave a Reply